How to Communicate in the Political Space?

On 26 and 27 June 2025, researchers gathered at the WissenschaftsForum Berlin for the second Science-Policy Workshop organised by the German Alliance for Marine Research and Helmholtz SynCom. Building on the successful launch in January 2025, the focus was once again on competence-oriented exchange: How can effective communication between research and politics be designed – and what role do scientists play in this?

Seizing opportunities and identifying challenges

The first day began with an intensive discussion of the opportunities and challenges of science-policy dialogue. Constructive science-policy dialogue creates mutual added value: scientific expertise provides political decision-makers with a sound basis for evidence-based decisions and enables them to better understand complex interrelationships. In return, researchers gain a better understanding of political decision-making processes and current issues, and identified research gaps enable a more targeted focus on future questions. Overall, active engagement in science-policy dialogue enables researchers to increase the relevance and impact of their work.

At the same time, it became clear that science-policy dialogue is not yet sufficiently integrated into career paths, funding mechanisms and evaluation systems. Another challenge is the time commitment required for the continuous communication and networking that is necessary for science-policy dialogue.

The role of scientists in policy dialogue

In the subsequent reflection, the tension between scientific objectivity and political positioning was discussed. There is no blanket answer to the question of how far scientists should express themselves politically. The decisive factors are institutional framework conditions, personal attitudes and individual understanding of roles. Using various models (based on Pielke, R.A. Jr 2007), different self-perceptions were discussed, although these cannot be clearly distinguished from one another:

• Pure scientist: provides scientific findings without getting involved in political decision-making processes
• Arbiter: offers processed, targeted information
• Issue advocate: clearly advocates certain courses of action
• Honest broker: presents different options and supports differentiated decision-making processes

Insight into the practice of science communication

In the programme item ‘Discussion of practical examples’, Dr Nike Fuchs (Research Associate, Communication and Transfer, MARUM, University of Bremen) and Roland Koch (Head of Communication and Media, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research) provided insights into their daily work in the fields of science communication and transfer.

Both speakers used concrete examples to show how scientific results can be incorporated into political processes, whether through targeted communication formats such as delegation trips (e.g. to Spitsbergen), the selection of suitable channels (e.g. press conferences or social media) or the tailored addressing of relevant target groups, such as experts in ministries. The long-term development of relationships with political actors was also discussed: it is not the selective dissemination of information, but rather continuous dialogue that creates trust and effectiveness.

Communication formats and practical exercises for political dialogue

In addition to dialogue-oriented formats such as parliamentary events, examples of which were presented in the workshop by Helmholtz SynCom and the DAM, policy briefs were also among the formats discussed in the workshop. In a group exercise, participants analysed various examples of science-based information formats, including policy briefs and fact sheets, discussing their comprehensibility, structure and informative value. The exercise clearly demonstrated how important clear language, recognisable core messages and the presentation of research results in a way that is tailored to the target audience are for effective exchange with policymakers.

The participants then reflected on the social, economic and political relevance of their own research topics and developed key messages and initial ideas for possible courses of action.

Knowledge exchange with representatives from politics

On the morning of the second day of the workshop, the group had a discussion with Tanja Hickel (former office manager in the Bundestag), Stefan Hübner (Head of the Department of ‘Fisheries Structure and Market Policy, Marine Environment Protection, Responsible Authority EMFF/EMFAF at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, BMLEH) and Dr Stefan Olbermann (Head of the Department ‘Financial Issues of International Organisations; Financial Issues of International Climate Policy and Environmental Protection’ at the Federal Ministry of Finance, BMF). The first topic was the integration of scientific information into everyday politics. This is strongly driven by day-to-day business: "There is little time to read long newsletters." If scientific expertise is to reach politicians, it is crucial to keep abreast of current events and then choose the right moment for exchange. Personal contacts in politics and with other actors, such as representatives of environmental associations, are indispensable for obtaining information about legislative projects at an early stage, for example. The coalition agreement also offers insights into upcoming topics. It is also worthwhile to stay in touch and attend events in Berlin: "I think events are unbeatable" because they provide opportunities for conversation. Policy briefs are read by the speakers primarily when time permits and the topic is on the political agenda. Online media are also used, with linked, freely accessible studies being particularly helpful – a plea for open access.

When it comes to evaluating and obtaining information, departmental research plays a particularly important role for ministries within the research landscape. In general, the imprint is checked and filtered according to which persons and organisations are already known. "Everyone knows the AWI; everyone knows Helmholtz". Even though it can be challenging for researchers to formulate concrete recommendations for action, these play an important role for political representatives. The combination of facts and recommendations for action is ideal and makes the work easier. In this context, the panel also emphasised that scientific recommendations for action are not automatically implemented. Political decisions are based on numerous factors; scientific findings form an important basis, but are only part of the overall picture. Scientists should be aware of these connections and not let them discourage them. Their expertise is not called into question. It is important to remain visible, actively seek dialogue with political actors and maintain personal networks. "Be confident when presenting your research to the public" was the final piece of advice for the participants of the science-policy workshop.

Transfer into practice and outlook

To promote the practical implementation of the workshop content, participants developed a short keynote speech or a one-page policy brief on their research topic. In a follow-up online meeting, they presented their results and received mutual feedback. The feedback collected was then summarised in a practical handout.

The participants gained comprehensive insight into the field of political communication in the science-policy workshop, which was jointly organised by DAM and Helmholtz SynCom and led by Tome Sandevski. It can be concluded that for a successful exchange with politicians, it is helpful to clarify one's own understanding of one's role, define a concrete goal, understand the political context, and communicate scientific content in clear, understandable language with concise key messages and, depending on the goal, also with options for action. In feedback from one researcher, key aspects of the workshop were summarised as follows: "Above all, I found the exchange with experts from science communication and political practice very interesting, and this provided good approaches on how to implement this in scientific work in order to expand and improve dialogue with politics and administration".

Conception and Organisation: Tome Sandevski (Goethe University Frankfurt), Paulina Conrad (DAM) and Dr Katharina Sielemann (Helmholtz SynCom).